"Appreciating Film: The Art of the Cool" Class Blog

Sunday, May 3, 2009

If you haven’t seen Fight Club, you won’t want to read this post. I’m warning you up front. The end of Fight Club reveals that the protagonist has multiple-personality disorder, explaining the creation of the character Tyler Durden. This reminded me of another movie I saw a couple of years ago with a very similar, nearly exactly, twist to its plot: Secret Window.

In Secret Window writer Mort Rainey is on a quest to defeat writer’s block by retreating to a secluded lakeside cabin. While at the cabin, he discovers that his wife has cheated on him and is still with her other lover.

To make the situation worse, a man, Shooter, finds Rainey in the cabin, claiming that Rainey’s recent book was an exact copy of his book. Rainey attempts to have an investigator look into the charge, but Shooter goes on a killing spree. Rainey always seems to be just behind the killer, just like when the protagonist is tracking down Tyler Durden and is one step behind. In the end, Mort realizes that Shooter is, in fact, himself. But the movie ends on a sinister note, with Rainey’s transformation in Shooter and murdering of his wife and her lover.

Secret Window is more of a thriller, and the revealing of writer Mort Rainey’s dissociative identity disorder is not as calm. Not as cool. He doesn’t argue with is alter ego. In fact, in Fight Club having an alter ego is cool. In Secret Window, its not. Is this because Shooter is killing left and right, just like Durden, but has no deeper purpose than causing chaos in a small town? Perhaps it has to do with the defeat of the alter ego. In Fight Club, the protagonist eventually defeats Tyler Durden by turning his own gun against him. In Secret Window, Rainey never defeats his other personality. He embraces it and plans on dying with it.

Fight Club also used various close-up shots throughout the movies, to emphasize character reactions or certain details of a scene. This reminded me of other, often violent ones, that use the close-up/slow-motion technique when showing a character throwing a punch. The victim’s cheeks go flying to the side, beads of sweat slowly fly with the force of the punch, a stream of blood escapes from the mouth followed by a tooth or two. I always think to myself, “What exactly is the point of showing this so close-up. It doesn’t accomplish anything but making me cringe.” But perhaps this is the point. Audiences will cringe when they see a punch thrown from far away, but put them right in the victim’s face, and they no longer just cringe. They feel the punch. Even the cartoon “Spongebob Squarepants” uses extreme close-ups, often to show unflattering characteristics of the characters, such as when they are dead tired or sick. Fight Club’s use of such close-ups brings its audiences closer the movie. The audience feels the boredom of the office meeting, feel enveloped in the scene, and feel the pain in the punch. Perhaps this is the point of extreme close-ups: to envelope the viewer in the movie further than before. Maybe I’ve missed the point all along.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

I gotta hand it to them. That was a twist. I did not expect Fight Clubto end the way it did. But I enjoyed it. Fight Club was the epitome of a cool movie, by all definitions we have established throughout this semester. Unlike last week’s viewing of Reservoir Dogs, I could watch this movie (with all the blood and violence) and cringe, but still enjoy what I was watching.

Fight Club challenged the safe life, the boring life, the self-help life. It shows the stupidity of self-help groups designed to help you accept death. Accept death? Forget that. You should ignore death. By ignoring the one thing that ends your life, you can let your life begin. In this life we are often so caught up with attaining material things that we forget how to live. Our lives become defined by going through the moves at your 9-to-5 job and your window-lined condo. It shows the stupidity ofworrying over petty details. After living the fighting life, the unnamed protagonist must sit through comparably boring office meetings, where one guy is even so caught up with petty material details that he requests a computer icon in “cornflower blue.” First, why is the color of your computer icon even important? Second, what real man knows the color “cornflower blue”? Men only know basic colors: red, blue, yellow, green, orange, black, brown, purple, and pink. The man who knows the color “cornflower blue” is obviously not living. The movie shows this, and shows that the men accepting the cubicle lifestyle are not living either.

Though the movie does satirize the material obsessions of the modern world, I think it also warns against the danger of completely letting go. Through the insanity of Tyler Durden, Fight Club shows that desire for no structure in life whatsoever leads to complete chaos. And chaos has the ability to seep into any crack. It appeals to the working men, the poor men, the rich men, men across states, and even men in law enforcement. However, within the chaos, these men lose their identity. When involved in Project Mayhem, the men have no name. They are just pieces that create one big puzzle of terrorists with the same desire. Only when one dies does he regain his name, as when Bob is killed and the men are told “His name is Robert Paulson.” Robert Paulson gains identity, men the remaining men are still one mass, even chanting in unison, “His name is Robert Paulson. His name is Robert Paulson. His name is Robert Paulson…”

Is losing your identity to chaos better than losing your identity to material possessions? One gives you an identified life of repetition. One gives you an unidentified life of action and spontaneity. It’s like one of those hard “Would you rather?” questions: would you rather live 9-to-5 life where everyone knows who you are, or would you rather live a life where every day is different but you sacrifice your identity to become a figure in a mass or men?

Sunday, April 26, 2009

After watching Reservoir Dogs, it is going to be difficult to find something similar in modern media, because quite honestly I have never seen anything like it. It’s not my type of movie, so we will see how well on do on these comparisons.

If the grotesque, unnecessary violence in Reservoir Dogs is what makes it cool, then I must not be cool. This explains why I often don’t like rap music. It’s use of sexually explicit lyrics and curse words to get a violent message across is completely unnecessary to me. If rap music is cool, then I am not. I don’t see the point in singing about violence and “gettin’ it” from a different woman every night. Some examples are: "you need to think about the future before I shoot your ass and dilute your blood with lead from my hollow tips, I'll send you to an early grave" (Outkast); "I tote guns, I make number runs, I give emcees the runs drippin when I throw my clip in the AK, I slay from far away. Everybody hit the DECK" (Notorious BIG); "Grabbed her by the throat, it's murder she wrote. You barely heard a word as she choked. It wasn't nuttin' for her to be smoked, but I slammed her on her back 'til her vertebrae broke" (Eminem).

Even in every day conversation, curse words seem unnecessary to me. You can get your point across just as effectively without cursing as you can with it. Some may argue with me, but this is my opinion. Perhaps this is why I love the eloquent speech found in novels of the 1800s. The characters could be furious, but relay that information in speech without marring the point with useless explicatives. Also, lyrics can express anger and pain with out cursing. In their song “Blue and Yellow”, the lead singer of The Used (a favorite band of mine) expresses his frustration with a situation but unwillingness to leave when he says, “Shoulda done something, but I’ve done it enough. By the way your hands were shaking, rather waste my time with you. Shoulda said something, but I’ve said it enough. By way my words were faded, rather waste some time with you.” Angst, angst, angst…yet not a trace of a cuss word in this song.

Quentin Tarantino chose to shoot Reservoir Dogs in a 1970s retro style. And it fits. We discussed in class how a new model of a Kia just wouldn’t fit in with the storyline. There are some movies that just require being set during a certain time period. This applies to movie creations of novels, as well. I just can’t imagine Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice being set in 2000. Some movies have attempted to modernize classics. The remake of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet attempted to retell the story in modern times; it wasn’t very well received. Is this because some stories just can’t be translated into modern times? Or is the public so set in its ways that it refuses to welcome any modernization of the good ole classics? Conversely, some movies just couldn’t be set back in any other time but the present.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

So this week I fail to look at our syllabus. Guess what? Our first blog assignment is different than usual! In my defense, I wasn't at the beginning of class, so I never heard the verbal reminder. Nevertheless, here I am with my second blog for the day! :D

I’m not into blood and gore. Quite honestly, too much of it makes me sick to my stomach and I don’t want to finish the rest of the movie. Perhaps this is why I did not enjoy Reservoir Dogs.

Please note that I say “enjoy,” not “like.” I liked the movie, yes, in the sense of appreciating the detailed characters and engaging storyline. I liked where Quentin Tarantino was going with this. I did not enjoy watching it unfold. I honestly do not see the need for all the violence. We get that these guys are robbers. Killing is what they do. Is it completely necessary to cut a police officer’s ear off to demonstrate their violence? Is it completely necessary to kill nearly every character off? Is it completely necessary to have so many pools of blood across the warehouse?

Which brings me to another point. I found it incredibly interesting that nearly the entire movie was shot in one location. The warehouse.

Granted, the movie opens in a restaurant, the flashbacks take the viewers to the scene of the crime, and the robbers step outside of the warehouse every now and then. But everything in present time took place at the warehouse, or just outside the doors. Tarantino does a very good job of keeping the viewers interested even though the setting never changes. I would have never thought that a movie that takes place entirely in an empty warehouse could hold my attention. Then again, the vicious storyline took care of that.

The lack of background music in Reservoir Dogs made it unique. In class we came to the conclusion that Tarantino probably decided, “Hey, I really love this song. I’ve always wanted to use it in a movie…let’s put it here.” Kind of like closing your eyes and randomly picking a place to eat from a list of restaurants, so went Tarantino’s method of song selection. We also discussed how lack of a score made the movie tenser. A score usually moves the action along, and can encourage views to feel certain things based upon the emotion within the song. I assure you that audience would be bothered if a fanfare-battlecry song was being played in the background when two characters are falling in love. We have certain expectations for a score depending on the direction the movie is taking us. Because of Reservoir Dogs lack of a score, there lacked an underlying force to tell us how to feel. All we hear is gunshots and natural noises. We, in a way, don’t know what to think, because the music hasn’t told us what to think. For me, the lack of background music made the action more real. I felt like I was in the very warehouse. If I were there in real life, there would be no music in the background, besides the radio. Although I would personally love having a score playing for everything I do. That would be one random soundtrack.

Friday, April 17, 2009

Is the drag community becoming more accepted today? Some would say yes, and others would vehemently say no. Personally I believe drag may be becoming accepted in specific industries, but definitely not universally. The fashion industry, in particular, seems to be the most accepting of and offers the most opportunities for those in drag.

Our class discussion took a turn Wednesday night to questioning whether drag was still even around, especially in Arkansas. Apparently it is. And it is in prime-time television. During the discussion I couldn’t stop thinking of one of my favorite shows: America’s Next Top Model. One of the judges, Miss J, is definitely a cross-dresser, but I can’t go as far as to call him (or is it “her”?) a drag queen. In the movie, a drag queen teaches modeling lessons during the day. He teaches how to walk, hold your chin up, and strut your stuff. How ironic. On America’s Next Top Model Miss J is the “diva coach runway extraordinaire,” being the go-so source for everything runway.

During the movie, I also jotted a question down in my notebook. When they mentioned the House of Ninja, all I thought of was Benny Ninja, again from America’s Next Top Model. Is this purely coincidence? Come to find out, Benny is indeed a member of said House. He is the go-to source for anything related to posing, on Top Model, proving again that House members can make it farther than the street balls.

I still don’t believe that the world is accepting of what I will term “hardcore drag.” Hardcore drag is where men dress up in sequins, HUGE wigs, tons of makeup, and heels higher than what I dare to wear (and that’s saying something). See my picture from my previous post for an example. She isn’t hard to miss. Perhaps that drag world in general is just moving away from the hardcore drag, though. And because they are, in a sense, tamed down, they are making it onto television. Miss J can go crazy with certain accessories, but she never looks completely ridiculous. Maybe drag today is accepted, but still not taken seriously. Miss J is a useful resource, but I also think America’s Next Top Model keeps her around for comedic purposes. It’s pretty funny to see a man dressed as a woman strut his stuff better than wannabe models. On Project Runway, there was an episode where the contestants had to design an outfit for a drag queen. And these are the hardcore drag queens. So, they are getting exposure, but then again, what is the applicability of designing a drag queen outfit in the real fashion world.

On Project Runway, there is often a strange twist in the fashion requirements. An episode once required the contestants to design outfits from car parts. Now, as much as I LOVED Korto’s woven seat belt coat, no one would actually wear it out. It was taken seriously for analyzing Korto’s creativity, but not for the fashion value it holds. The same goes for the drag queen episode. They were included as a challenge, not as a serious designer demand.

So, hardcore drag is not as accepted as tamed-down drag, which is definitely not as accepted today as gay culture. Drag queens are sparse on television (though they are present), but almost every modern show has a gay character included. Shows include gays in all seriousness; they play important roles, as friends, such as Calvin on “Greek” or main characters, like Will on “Will and Grace.” Quite honestly, I don’t think drag will ever be taken completely seriously. Men can be attracted to other men and act more or less like a woman. They just can’t dress like one.

Thursday, April 16, 2009

If you are going to watch Jennie Livingston’s documentary Paris is Burning, I highly recommend reading Michael Cunningham’s “The Slap of Love” before viewing. I am certainly glad I did, not necessarily because it prepared me for the unusual images my eyes would see (although it was good that it did), but because I was not distracted by said images and could focus on the message of the documentary.

What I found incredibly interesting was the social order of the drag society. There are Houses that have certain requirements for membership. Some require a drag queen to win a competition for acceptance. Other just accept you if you ask. For being a lower class, often considered distasteful, the social order is extremely complex. The drag queens are searching for entry into a house so that they may win more balls, so that they may ultimately become a legend and make lots of money. In the documentary, as many times as the queens would say they desired a reputation, they would come back to admit it’s all about the money. But today, what isn’t?

When it comes to reputation, the drag queen balls are the sure-fire way to be named a legend. The House mothers often help their children get ready for the balls, coaching them in how to strut, how to pose, and how to be most “real.” Many times they claim that they just help out because they want their children to be a success. But if you think about it, when a member of the House of Xtravaganza wins a ball, who gets the credit? The drag queen? Yes. But the HOUSE also gains reputation for putting out winners, and who heads the House? The House mother. So, even though the mothers may say their intentions are truly altruistic in a sense, it never can be. If your child wins a ball, you get the reputation because they came from your House.

One of the ways to win a ball is to be crowned most “real.” Ironically, being most real means being able to appear to be something you’re not. Being most “real” is the ability to be most fake. Categories of realness include businessman, student, woman, etc. I found this to be the opposite of what is usually considered cool. If you desire to be “real” in the drag queen world, you desire to be able to blend in. You want to look so much like something, that people wouldn’t know otherwise. If you are a man, you want to look so much like a woman that no one would know. Quite honestly, this is that opposite of what cool is for me. Cool is the ability to stand out, the ability to be some extraordinary that distinguishes you from the group. You have a talent that is desirable because very few have that talent. So by that definition, drag queens attempting to look “real” could never be cool for me, because they are constantly trying to blend in.